It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The War Over "War Secrets": Why The NY Times Is Not Treasonous (Op/Ed)

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Becky, please..as if the whole world doesn't know they were doing this...including terrrorists.


The name is jsobecky, btw.

There is a world of difference between knowing that something is happening and releasing specific details about.

We all know that we have Special Ops forces searching out terrorists. Priniting that info is OK. Printing their location, tactics, etc., is not.




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well, it's nice to give all this lip service about the dynamics of a process we know nothing about, namely this NYT article and it's legality, it's another topic to see someone who does know do something about it.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the only treason I see are those wanting security over freedom


And the only treason I see are those wanting profit over security.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by thermopolis
The times has violated several sections of the anti-espionage act.........

Can I ask in what way you feel the Times did so?


A Consitutional Law expert from the South Texas school of law, did a long interview this morning on the subject. I will try to find a transcript. He made it very clear...............



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Question for everyone....

Has the NYT been charged yet? Why not?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the only treason I see are those wanting security over freedom


And the only treason I see are those wanting profit over security.


thats business....they own the politicians too so I dont see the point your making.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

thats business....they own the politicians too so I dont see the point your making.


Thanks for the remark.

Yes they own politicans too but more so who are those that are benefiting from owning the politicians.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
There is no difference in what the NYT's has done in telling of the banking data and printing that the US had broken Japans code in WWII.


Did the NY Times indicate that the US had broken any codes? Found any particular terrorist finances? Opened up any secretive information? If not, I don't see how you can say there's no difference. The info in the Times article was already discussed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was already known. There was no new information in the Times article.


Originally posted by jsobecky
There is a world of difference between knowing that something is happening and releasing specific details about.


What specific details were released?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
A Consitutional Law expert from the South Texas school of law, did a long interview this morning on the subject. I will try to find a transcript. He made it very clear...............


He likely was following a list of assumptions... but did he consider...

1) There has been public information about the use of the SWIFT system to watch terrorist funding since before 2003.

2) "Terrorists" are criminals, not "enemy states"... as such, I'm not clear how constitutional law relating to war powers would apply.

3) Several countries are now examining the possibility that international law was broken, especially lawmakers in Belgium who feel local banking laws were broken.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
And if we printed how the police arrested suspect, we would be acting treasonous because we would be telling suspects how to avoid capture. If they release the information of how the justice system was being exploited they would be treasonous because suspects would learn how to exploit the system. If we printed about how a politician is exploiting the lobbyist system, we would be acting treasonous because we would be telling politician criminals how to exploit that system.

You people never learn. All information that can be used for good can be used for bad. Science is information and we have all seen science can be used for bad the same as it can be used for good. Its just information, the people that act on it are the ones who are bad.

Just because you print an article doesn't make you treasonous. Anything that has to do with law or breaking the law, money being stolen, criminal act, could be considered treasons if you example how it happen.

So you suggest we stay in the dark on everything about the legal system, police tactics, and everything that has to do with law and its enforcement? That could dangerous real quick. How? Well if its treasonous to release the information, the ones in power are free to abuse it without the public demanding justice. good job.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes they own politicans too but more so who are those that are benefiting from owning the politicians.


That's exactly what i'm wondering. But, i'm considering more than just the Republican party here (not sure if you are or not). Last night I was watching two Congressman..one Dem the other Repub..go at it over this and they were just so over the top dramatic and it just seemed so fake?!

JSOBECKY...my apologies for calling you Becky...I just assumed...and well you know where that gets you. Anyhow, what details did they release?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

2) "Terrorists" are criminals, not "enemy states"... as such, I'm not clear how constitutional law relating to war powers would apply.



This is one of the biggest problems...........criminalization of war. This is not a TV movie. Terrorist are not "criminals" with any rights under the constitution.

However, the NYT's is criminal and should be dealth with accordingly.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

2) "Terrorists" are criminals, not "enemy states"... as such, I'm not clear how constitutional law relating to war powers would apply.



This is one of the biggest problems...........criminalization of war. This is not a TV movie. Terrorist are not "criminals" with any rights under the constitution.

However, the NYT's is criminal and should be dealth with accordingly.


thats where your wrong. Terrorists are criminals. They are not part of any army or department of some government. They are extremists from any religion of any country, killin people. They are just murderers. Murderers are criminals. Soldiers fighting in a WAR are not criminals, terrorists are not soldiers and not fighting a war.

Al qaeda doesn't have any of its own land, its just a band of international criminals.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
There is no difference in what the NYT's has done in telling of the banking data and printing that the US had broken Japans code in WWII. Japan knew the US was listening but didn't know we had the details.

How exactly do you know what happened in WWII?

Where you there?

How do you know US broke Japanese code at Midway when they successfully intercepted their Carrier force?

How do you know that US did NOT break Japanese code prior to 7th of December 1941?

Here is something for you to chew on:


PEARL HARBOR - MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES

"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.

FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -
  1. denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
  2. on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
  3. having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
    The US was warned by, at least, the governments of Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Peru, Korea and the Soviet Union that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. All important Japanese codes were broken. FDR and Marshall and others knew the attack was coming, allowed it and covered up their knowledge. It's significant that both the the chief of OP-20-G Safford and Friedman of Army SIS, the two people in the world that knew what we decoded, said that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

And keep in Mind that This is a C O N S P I R A C Y Forum Board...

[edit on 28/6/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
3) Several countries are now examining the possibility that international law was broken, especially lawmakers in Belgium who feel local banking laws were broken.

Now there's a nice point to be raised.

Privacy International, based out of London, has filed complaints with the regulators in 33 countries over the actions of SWIFT.



The complaints allege that the activity was undertaken without regard to legal process under Data Protection law, and that the disclosures were made without any legal basis or authority whatever. The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than legally authorised investigation.

www.privacyinternational.org...[347]=x-347-538985

Canada is also investigating whether the US went after Canadians records without authorization. Not that there is much we can do about it.



"This is something we're looking into," Anne-Marie Hayden, spokesperson for the privacy commissioner's office, told the newspaper.

"Any time personal information of Canadians is obtained by a foreign government in circumstances that may not provide the same privacy protections that exist in Canada, we have concerns."

CIA may have accessed Canadian banking records



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Terrorist are not "criminals" with any rights under the constitution.


I'm confused. Can you help me understand why we're using the criminal courts to prosecute captured terrorists?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
3) Several countries are now examining the possibility that international law was broken, especially lawmakers in Belgium who feel local banking laws were broken.



Now there's a nice point to be raised.


And that makes it look like to me that the Times wants the rest of the world to get ticked off at us. Hmmmm....another thought to ponder here.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Again.

This is not deflection. It's not treason.
It was just dumb. A move made by a NEWS outfit, to actually BECOME the news.
Sells papers, creates Web Hits.


Sensationalism.
If it had all been talked about before, all this information..Why again did they treat it as a top story? Because they collected it all into one convenient place? NICE.
It's in the Al Qeda scrapbook now. Probably under "A" for American Stupidity.

Desparationalism.
Times, and most Newspapers are losing money. Some papers are adapting well.
Some are not. NYT is still trying to reconfigure it's image, it's place in the world of instant information. This kind of thing is a bumbling attempt.
You'll see layoffs, in the near future.


Shame on the New York Times
"all the news thats print to fit"



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
A move made by a NEWS outfit, to actually BECOME the news.


What made news was the president's response. The original story would have been but a blip had the president not had such a vitriolic reaction to it. And according to Duzey's post above, his reasons may be becoming more clear...

On another note:

Be prepared for this administration and its supporters to begin incitements of violence against their opposition, couched as concern, but with all the suggestions and ideas (and hatred and violence) necessary to start some real trouble.


Originally posted by thermopolis
hang'em high............


The Bush War on Liberty



the Regime's hate campaign has now burst into the media mainstream, where calls for Times editors to stand trial for the capital crime of treason are routinely being aired, along with scarcely veiled exhortations for mob violence against the press.
...
Make no mistake: the Bush Regime intends to silence all dissenting voices and suppress all politically harmful information in the American establishment. ... What they cannot tolerate -- and increasingly will not tolerate -- is any institution, organization or person in a position of genuine influence on the American power structure to undermine the presidential dictatorship that the Regime has established.
...
And thus the current trial balloons in the media about charging the NYT with treason. These are serious threats; but just in case they're not enough, we're also getting the increasingly open call for violence against Bush opponents, for the "outraged public" to "take the law into their own hands." These calls are couched -- for now -- as "concerns" about "what might happen" if Bush's opponents continue their "provocations;" they are being phrased -- for now -- as warnings of a fate that the commentators hope will not come to pass. But as the Regime's position grows more precarious, these "concerns" will give way to incitements.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by spacedoubt
A move made by a NEWS outfit, to actually BECOME the news.

What made news was the president's response. The original story would have been but a blip had the president not had such a vitriolic reaction to it. And according to Duzey's post above, his reasons may be becoming more clear...


BH, that response was expected. NYT illicited that response.
It was no surprise that the Press, ticked off the Pres.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join